What twitch does is it takes the sprinting part of SS and isolates their COD skills.

I understand that. I was just wondering if any thought was given to cases where a player has a good/great 3-cone (which is also a COD drill - especially highlighting "bend") but has an oddly-low SS (that might lead one to believe the player just messed up doing the drill).

Would you just have to say in hindsight that it was an aberration & point to the 3-cone as the reason the player succeeded despite a bad twitch? (As it was noted Wimbley has been successful and was the only person in his group that had a sub-7s 3cone). You could always run a regression of 3cone vs SS times (for a position) and just substitute the bad SS with what the predicted SS would be based on their 3-cone, but I just thought I'd ask if anyone had come up with a "way around" this possible weakness in the metric. (Not that many player have this odd mis-match of times, but still interesting to me).

Instead of trying to fix the time, maybe it's pointing to a flaw in the player?

I'd be curious as to what makes each of the 2 drills unique? That is, on the surface they're both COD drills. I've seen analysis on 3-cone's correlation to a player's ability to bend & pass-rush from the edge - so I'm curious as to if there's something that SS captures that 3-cone doesn't. If not, I was just asking if there was anything other than hindsight to evaluate those odd-cases of bad SS + great 3-cone. There's nothing wrong with that, "____ doesn't grade out well in Twitch, but he's got a great 3-cone so he'll probably still be successful", but I was curious.

EDIT:Now that I'm looking at it, per his formula players are punished for running a good 10 yard split. Starr has the lowest twitch by a mile because he A: had the best shuttle in the group and B: had the 3rd worst 10 yard split in the group._________________Nuke's Thread Archive
Damn the Falcons for stealing my 2014 mancrushes.

I thought he was in low risk 2, which was for all players who got hgiher than 1.05 in the power thing.

If you remove Mark Anderson and Dontay Moch, since neither of them have played in a 3-4, Then the only two in that category who have not been to a Pro Bowl are Barwin and Houston. Remarkable considering Barwin was arguably deserving of the honor last season.

I think a couple things should be noted about the guys that didn't make a Pro Bowl.

Mark Anderson wasn't a high profile draft prospect like most of the others that broke the 1.05 explosive power number and didn't even get drafted until late in the 5th round. As a rookie he broke Urlacher's Bears' rookie record for sacks with 12. He also finished as runner-up for defensive rookie of the year. Pretty good for a 5th rounder. He had a lot of pressure and high expectations put on him by the media and ultimately couldn't live up to him them in the following years.

Moch got injured in the preseason of his rookie year then had a drug related suspension followed by issues with recurring migraines and has never really done anything but you have to wonder what could have been if he stayed healthy and kept on the right path.